Free Motion for Cost and Fees - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv—O104§;PCD Document 131 Filed O9/@2006 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT .
CLIFTON S. FREEDMAN, )
‘ )
Plaintiff, ) ?
) » Civil Action N0. 3:03CVl048 (PCD)
v. )
) .
THE TOWN OF FAIRFIELD, )
DETECTIVE WILLIAM YOUNG AND ) I
DETECTIVE DAVID BENSEY )
(Individually and in their official capacities ) SEPTEMBER 20, 2006
as police officers for the Town of Fairfield), )
)
Defendants. ) {
PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
The Plaintiff, Clifton S. Freedman, respectfully renews his motion, pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 54(d)(2), for an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $ 250,045.08 based on this
Court’s Amended Judgment dated November 8, 2005, which did not become final until
September 19, 2006, when the Court denied the Defendants’ motion for reconsideration of that
judgment} The statutory authority for an award of fees in this case is 18 U.S.C § 2707(b) and A
(C)- I
1 The Plaintiff originally served his motion on the Defendants on November 18, 2005 and .
simultaneously tiled a notice of service of the motion with the Court. See Docket entry # 117.
Pursuant to this Court’s standing order requiring a moving party to serve a motion on the A
opposing party and then file the complete "package" of briefs with the Court only after an A
opposition brief has been filed, the Plaintiff did not file the motion on November 18, 2005. (A
copy of the motion is attached hereto as Exhibit A.) However, instead of providing the g
original and a copy of their opposition memorandum to the undersigned counsel so that he i
could file the complete package with the Court, the Defendants instead filed their opposition
brief directly. See Docket entry # 127. Thus, the Court’s docket reflects the filing of a notice
of service of a motion for attorney’s fees, followed by a memorandum in opposition to the E
motion for attorney’s fees, but not that motion itself. E
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
ianusmztznsssosvi I
owzums-rum

Case 3:03-cv-O104&_PCD Document 131 Filed 09/21/2006 Page 2 of 3
In support of this Motion, the Plaintiff submits the accompanying memorandum of j
law.2 THE PLAINTIFF,
CLIFTON S. FREED AN
“ \
Je li"
Daniel J. Klau (ctl'7957) i
H. James Pickerstein (ct05094)
- Calvin K. Woo (ct24951) P
Pepe & Hazard LLP `
Goodwin Square J
225 Asylum Street
Hartford, CT 06103-4302 5
Phone: (860) 522-5175 {
Fax: (860) 522-2796
[email protected] i
[email protected]
[email protected]
Robert Y. Altchiler (ct24247)
The Law Offices of Robert Y. Altchiler
191 Post Road West
Westport, CT 06880
The Defendants subsequently filed a timely motion for reconsideration of the Court’s
Amended Judgment. Although the Plaintiff originally objected to the motion as untimely (as
well as on its merits), it became clear during an extended telephonic conference with the
Second Circuit’s clerk’s office that the motion was timely and, therefore, that the Plaintiff’s
appeal from the Amended Judgment was premature. The appeal will be reinstated in light of
the Court’s ruling on the Defendants’ motion for reconsideration. The filing of the motion for
reconsideration rendered the motion for attorneys’ fees premature. Thus, the Plaintiff now
timely renews his motion for attorneys’ fees. `
2 This motion and memorandum of law is identical in all substantive respects to the motion and
memorandum served on the Defendants on November 18, 2005.
nmxszazxzzvsceosvi ‘ ;
09/20l06-HRT!

Case 3:03-cv-O104§;PCD Document 131 Filed O9/2y2006 Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent via first class mail, postage
prepaid, this 20th day of September, 2006 to the following:
Thomas Murtha, Esq. I
Maher & Murtha, LLC E
528 Clinton Avenue . Q
P.O. Box 901 Q
Bridgeport, CT 06601 _j
Calvin K. Woo n
Dtxxszmzlzrvassusvi
09/20/06-HRT»'